Stanley v. Robinson

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a foreclosure dispute involving a mortgagee’s notice of sale and an alleged oral agreement to release a second mortgage. The court affirmed summary judgment rejecting specific enforcement of the alleged oral agreement and holding that three weeks of publication was sufficient, but reversed and remanded because conflicting evidence created a genuine issue concerning the foreclosure-sale notice and supported amendment of the complaint to add fraud and misrepresentation claims.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment for Robinson was proper on Stanley's claim for specific performance because Stanley offered no evidence of the alleged oral agreement other than his own word.
2. The summary judgment could not stand on the issue of whether proper foreclosure notice was given because the record showed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the sale was scheduled for September 28 and later postponed or was instead originally advertised for October 19.
3. Three consecutive weeks of publication were adequate under the mortgage and applicable Alabama law; four consecutive weeks were not required.
4. The trial court should have allowed Stanley to amend his complaint to add fraud and misrepresentation claims based on the conflicting statements concerning the foreclosure-sale date.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Stanley's claim for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement releasing the second mortgage.
2. Whether the foreclosure notice complied with Ala. Code § 6-8-69 after the sale date identified in the notice was changed or allegedly changed.
3. Whether three consecutive weeks of publication satisfied Ala. Code § 35-10-2 and the applicable mortgage-notice requirements.
4. Whether Stanley should have been allowed to amend his complaint to add fraud and misrepresentation claims based on the conflicting evidence concerning the foreclosure-sale date.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded